COMPARABLY EFFICIENT INTERCONNECTION PLAN FOR NET PROTOCOL CONVERSION SERVICES FOR AT&T INC. S BELL OPERATING COMPANIES (AT&T BOCS)

Transcription

1 COMPARABLY EFFICIENT INTERCONNECTION PLAN FOR NET PROTOCOL CONVERSION SERVICES FOR AT&T INC. S BELL OPERATING COMPANIES (AT&T BOCS) Pursuant to the Federal Communications Commission s Computer III Orders 1, Pacific Bell Telephone Company, Nevada Bell Telephone Company, Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., Illinois Bell Telephone Company, Indiana Bell Telephone Company, The Ohio Bell Telephone Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, Wisconsin Bell, Inc. (the AT&T BOCs ), publish this plan for comparably efficient interconnection ( CEI ) for net protocol conversion services over special access facilities on a bundled basis ( Plan ). This Plan complies with the Commission s requirement that the AT&T BOCs provide other enhanced services providers ( ESPs ) with comparably efficient interconnection ( CEI ) to the AT&T BOCs local network. I. INTRODUCTION The AT&T BOCs special access services are capable of providing data transport to customers whose terminals and host computers utilize a number of interfaces and different speeds (Time Division Multiplexed DS1-DS3; SONET OCn; Ethernet; Fiber channel or other optical protocols). To minimize the number of customer connections, terminals and/or equipment needed, the AT&T BOCs could perform net protocol conversions between various special access facilities. II. SERVICE DESCRIPTION The enhanced service that the AT&T BOCs will provide under this Plan is net protocol conversion by which the AT&T BOCs convert specific protocols riding special access facilities to other protocols on different special access facilities. The actual protocol conversion will occur in equipment located within the AT&T BOCs network. The AT&T BOCs will provide connections to the equipment through the use of special access facilities. These special access facilities are available today to other providers so that they can provide 1 Amendment of Sections of the Commission s Rules and Regulations (Computer III), Report and Order, 104 FCC 2d 958 (1986) (Phase I Order), modified on reconsideration, 2 FCC Rcd 3035 (1987) (Phase I Recon Order), aff d on further reconsideration, FCC 88-9 (released Feb. 18, 1988) (Phase I Further Recon Order. See also Report and Order, 2 FCC Rcd 3072 (Phase II Order, modified on reconsideration, FCC (released Feb. 18, 1988) (Phase II Recon Order).

2 their own protocol conversion services, or they will be available at the time the AT&T BOCs provide the bundled enhanced service. The Commission has stated that a carrier s CEI plan should contain a description of the geographic areas and network locations within which it will offer the enhanced service in question. 2 The AT&T BOCs will offer its bundled protocol conversion services in any LATA where it provides the special access services. III. COMPARABLY EFFICIENT INTERCONNECTION This section of the Plan demonstrates the AT&T BOCs compliance with the CEI requirements of the Computer III Orders for protocol conversion offerings. There are four such requirements: (a) minimization of transport costs for connections between BOC end offices and competing ESPs facilities; (b) unbundled end-user access to underlying BOC or ESP transmission networks through a nondiscriminatory user/network interface; (c) interoffice channels taken at tariffed, service guide or guidebook rates by both BOCs and competing ESPs; and (d) application of the Commission s general CEI pricing requirements. 3 A. Minimization of Transport The Commission has held that a BOC must minimize a competing ESP s transport costs for the connections between the BOC s end offices and the competitor s facilities such as through use of multiplexed facilities. 4 The Commission has also held that a BOC can satisfy this requirement if it charges itself an access link rate that is the same as that paid by non-collocated enhanced service providers, provided that the access connections in each case are equivalent in technical equality. 5 Each AT&T BOC will thus charge itself the same rates as it charges other ESPs for their special access arrangements. Moreover, the AT&T BOCs transport services include high capacity 2 Phase I Recon Order, para Phase II Recon Order, paras Phase II Order, para Phase II Recon Order, para. 34. [2]

3 facilities that provide efficient transport of multiple circuits and thereby reduce the transmission costs of competing ESPs. Furthermore, access connections to the AT&T BOCs and competing ESPs protocol conversion capabilities will be technically equivalent. In each case, connection to the AT&T BOCs basic network will be through identical technical interconnections. The AT&T BOCs nondiscriminatory circuit assignment and installation and maintenance procedures will ensure that all circuits meet the same preestablished standards described in the AT&T BOCs applicable service publications. B. Unbundled, Nondiscriminatory End User Access The Commission has required unbundled access by end users to the underlying transport network of a carrier or its competitors through a nondiscriminatory user/network interface. 6 All of the basic network capabilities used by the AT&T BOCs in providing end users access to AT&T BOCs protocol conversion services described in this Plan will be available as standalone special access purchases. All of these basic network capabilities are currently unbundled from other service offerings and are associated with their own specific rate elements. Accordingly, the basic services that the AT&T BOCs will use in the net protocol conversion services under this Plan satisfy the Commission s unbundling requirement. C. Interoffice Channels Taken at Tariffed Rates The Commission has required the application of tariffed rates to the interoffice channels... whether used by the BOCs or the [competing ESPs.] 7 The AT&T BOCs comply with this requirement because they will take all of the interoffice facilities used in its net protocol conversion services under this Plan from the same special access rates as do other ESPs, regardless of whether such rates are contained in tariffs, service guides or guidebooks. 8 6 Phase II Order, para Phase II Order, para As directed by the Commission, this will be accomplished in accordance with the accounting principles established in CC Docket No , FCC (released February 6, 1987) ( Joint Cost Order ). These principles are [3]

4 D. Application of CEI Pricing Requirements As previously described, the AT&T BOCs will utilize existing special access services to support the provision of its net protocol conversion services hereunder. Since the AT&T BOCs and their competitors will be paying the same rates for the underlying transport services that support their enhanced services, the AT&T BOCs have met the Commission s CEI pricing requirements and precompetitive goals. IV. NONSTRUCTURAL SAFEGUARDS The Commission also directed that certain information regarding other nonstructural safeguards also be filed with CEI plans. 9 The AT&T BOCs must satisfy certain installation and maintenance reporting requirements. 10 The AT&T BOCs must satisfy certain requirements for the treatment of Customer Proprietary Network Information ( CPNI ). 11 Finally, the AT&T BOCs must comply with the Commission s Network Disclosure rules. 12 This section demonstrates the AT&T BOCs compliance with these requirements. reflected in the provisions of AT&T BOCs Cost Allocation Manual ( CAM ), which was substantially approved on January 29, 1988, and modified in accordance with the Commission s directives on March 29, Under the Joint Cost Order, the Commission had required AT&T BOCs to file and maintain a Cost Allocation Manual. See, In the matter of Separation of costs of regulated telephone service from costs of nonregulated activities, Amendment of Part 31, the Uniform System of Accounts for Class A and Class B Telephone Companies to provide for nonregulated activities and to provide for transactions between telephone companies and their affiliates, Report and Order in CC Docket No , FCC , (released February 6, 1987) (Joint Cost Order). Now, however, the Commission has granted the AT&T BOCs an order forbearing from this obligation. Petition of AT&T Inc. For Forbearance Under 47 U.S.C. 160 From Enforcement of Certain of the Commission's Cost Assignment Rules; Petition of BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. For Forbearance Under 47 U.S.C. 160 From Enforcement of Certain of the Commission's Cost Assignment Rules, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 7302 (2008) (AT&T Forbearance Order). 10 Phase II Order, paras ; Phase II Recon Order, paras Id., paras ; and paras , respectively. 12 Phase I Order, paras ; Phase II Order, paras ; Phase II Recon Order, paras [4]

5 A. Allocation of Joint and Common Costs AT&T BOCs presently comply with the obligations imposed on them by the Commission under the AT&T Forbearance Order and AT&T s obligations under Section 254(k) of the Act. B. Nondiscrimination Reporting The AT&T BOCs will continue to abide by the FCC s nondiscrimination rules applicable to installation, maintenance, and repair, to ensure nondiscriminatory provision of basic services to all ESPs. C. Customer Proprietary Network Information In the Phase II Order, the Commission adopted CPNI requirements for the information service operations of the BOCs that require them to: (1) make CPNI available, upon customer request, to unaffiliated information service vendors on the same terms and conditions that are available to their own information services personnel; (2) limit their information service personnel from accessing a customer s CPNI, if the customer so requests; and (3) notify multi-line business customers annually of their CPNI rights. The Commission also required the BOCs to provide to unaffiliated information service vendors the same type of nonproprietary, aggregate CPNI that the BOCs provide to their own information service personnel. This information must be provided to unaffiliated vendors on the same terms and conditions that are available to the BOC s own information service operations. In the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Congress enacted a statutory CPNI provision. 13 The Commission later determined that the competitive and privacy concerns upon which the Computer III CPNI framework rests were fully addressed by the Commission s new CPNI rules promulgated under section 222 of the Act, and that, continued retention of the Commission s Computer III CPNI framework would produce no additional benefit. 14 The Commission further ruled that, insofar as it eliminated the Computer III CPNI requirements, carriers ONA and CEI plans would no longer have to address CPNI U.S.C Implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996: Telecommunications Carriers Use of Customer Proprietary Network Information and Other Customer Information; Implementation of the Non-accounting Safeguards of Sections 271 and 272 of the Communications Act of 1934, as Amended, Second Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 13 FCC Rcd 8061 (1998) (CPNI Order). 15 Id. [5]

6 In the U.S. West, Inc. v. FCC case, however, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the CPNI Order. 16 At an open meeting held on July 16, 2002, the Commission announced that it would release an order affirming its finding that the Tenth Circuit decision vacated only the CPNI rules related to opt in and left intact the remainder of the CPNI rules, including those eliminating the Computer III CPNI requirements. 17 The AT&T BOCs will abide by the Commission s rules and requirements regarding the use of CPNI in all aspects. D. Network Disclosure The interconnection between the Net Protocol Conversion Services and the underlying basic services will be achieved through already existing, previously published standard network interfaces. Therefore, no change to existing network interface specifications is required, and no publications of any new interfaces is required. In the future, should interface specifications change, the AT&T BOCs will comply with the applicable FCC advance notice requirements. V. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the AT&T BOCs post this Plan to offer comparably efficient interconnection using special access services so that they can begin unseparated offering of the net protocol conversion services described herein. September 2010 PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, NEVADA BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC., ILLINOIS BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, INDIANA BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, THE OHIO BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, MICHIGAN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, AND WISCONSIN BELL, INC F.3d 1224 (10 th Cir. 1999), cert. denied sub. nom Competition Policy Institute v. U.S. West, Inc., 530 U.S. 1213, 120 S.Ct. 2215, 147 L.Ed.2d 248 (2000). 17 Federal Communications Commission News Release: FCC Adopts Rules Resolving How Phone Companies Share and Market Customer Information (July 16, 2002). [6]